The Atlantic - How the Video-Game Industry Already Lost Out in the Gun-Control Debate.As it happens, that's just what happened to games (and popular media more generally) in the NRA's good guy with a gun response to the Newtown shooting. Guns aren't a factor in gun violence for the NRAŚrather, games, media, and law enforcement failures must take the blame. Once the terms of the debate are set like this (and set they very much were thanks to the over-the-top bravado in this press conference) then it's very hard to extract oneself from the debate without shifting the frame, without changing the terms of the debate.

I certainly believe that the White House would like nothing more than to see an end to mass gun murders in America's elementary schools. But the fact remains that gun violence takes place every day, all across this country, at a rate of dozens of deaths a day, and as the leading cause of death among African-American youth. But when the vice president establishes a task force on gun control and violence that includes the media industries that the NRA has once again chosen as their patsies after a particularly heinous and public example of gun violence, all it can do is shift attention away from guns.

IGN - Let's Talk About Violent Video Games.Distinctions between games for adults and those for kids are fairly clear these days, thanks to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). Formed in 1994, the ESRB rates all video games as a guide for parents similar to the way movies are rated by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Games are rated ranging from E for Everyone and T for Teen to M for Mature, 17+.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that games are only for children. This needs to change for the 'violence in games' dialogue to advance.

Post CommentEnter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.

Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2013, 19:52:Creston, I hope you are not serious about that. That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Oh, so the DHS has prevented terrorist attacks, huh? We have had ONE ever. Period. We had none before that, and none after.

That's like claiming... I don't know. I honestly cannot think of anything as stupid as what you just said.

One attack, huh? The 1975 and 1993 bombings in New York City don't count? Oklahoma City in 1995 doesn't count? And that's me being generous and assuming that you meant we had no terrorist attacks on American soil, because if you're literally saying what it appears you are saying, that America has had exactly ONE terrorist attack against it, period, may I suggest just going ahead and switching to a different news source, because then you just reached a level of fucking ignorance heretofore only claimed by the President of fucking Iran.

And no attacks after?

let me just go back three years:

2010 May 1, New York City: a car bomb is discovered in Times Square, New York City after smoke is seen coming from a vehicle. The bomb was ignited, but failed to detonate and was disarmed before it could cause any harm. Times Square was evacuated as a safety precaution. Faisal Shahzad pleads guilty to placing the bomb as well as 10 terrorism and weapons charges. Oct. 29: two packages are found on separate cargo planes. Each package contains a bomb consisting of 300 to 400 grams (11-14 oz) of plastic explosives and a detonating mechanism. The bombs are discovered as a result of intelligence received from Saudi Arabia's security chief. The packages, bound from Yemen to the United States, are discovered at en route stop-overs, one in England and one in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.2011 Jan. 17, Spokane, Washington: a pipe bomb is discovered along the route of the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial march. The bomb, a "viable device" set up to spray marchers with shrapnel and to cause multiple casualties, is defused without any injuries.

"Awr shit the DHS dun do nothing there aint no attacks being made agains ush!" Solid argument there, numbnuts.

Creston

I was going to reply, but then I see that you chose to start calling names like a 5th grader, so I don't feel the need to argue with someone like that.